Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate®

Breast imaging for cancer screening: Mammography and ultrasonography

Shambhavi Venkataraman, MD
Priscilla J Slanetz, MD, MPH, FACR
Section Editor
Joann G Elmore, MD, MPH
Deputy Editor
Sadhna R Vora, MD


Screening mammography is the primary imaging modality for early detection of breast cancer because it is the only method of breast imaging that consistently has been found to decrease breast cancer-related mortality. Mammography may detect cancer one and a half to four years before a cancer becomes clinically evident. (See "Screening for breast cancer: Evidence for effectiveness and harms", section on 'Mammography'.)

The prototype of the mammography unit was developed in 1965 [1]. Many technical advances have been made since then to improve the image quality, as well as to reduce the radiation dose to the patient. Ongoing technologic advancements, to both enhance mammography and develop other breast imaging modalities, seek to provide earlier diagnosis of breast disease; more accurate assessment of disease extent and treatment response; and improve the detection of recurrence.

This topic will review mammography technique, performance capabilities of mammography in particular patient groups, interpretation of a mammogram report, and the use of breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography. Newer mammography techniques are also discussed. Issues regarding screening for breast cancer, the role of mammography in women with suspected disease, and surveillance for patients with known breast cancer are discussed separately (see "Screening for breast cancer: Strategies and recommendations" and "Clinical features, diagnosis, and staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer" and "Approach to the patient following treatment for breast cancer"). Other imaging techniques for breast disease are discussed separately. (See "MRI of the breast and emerging technologies".)


A mammogram involves exposing the breast to x-rays. These x-rays are both transmitted through the breast tissue as well as scattered to the surrounding tissue. The x-rays are attenuated based upon the characteristics of the breast tissue, and are then absorbed as latent images on the recording device (figure 1). The latent image is processed and displayed for diagnostic purposes [2].

Routine evaluation includes obtaining two views (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique) of each breast. In the craniocaudal (CC) view (image 1), the breast is lifted and positioned on the plate and compression is applied from above. In the mediolateral oblique (MLO) view (image 2), the breast is compressed and imaged from the side. Breast positioning is critical. Improper positioning may lead to exclusion of parts of the breast from the field of view, risking non-visualization of a cancer (image 3).


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Dec 2016. | This topic last updated: Wed Nov 16 00:00:00 GMT+00:00 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Gold RH, Bassett LW, Widoff BE. Highlights from the history of mammography. Radiographics 1990; 10:1111.
  2. Yaffe MJ. AAPM tutorial. Physics of mammography: image recording process. Radiographics 1990; 10:341.
  3. Muir BB, Kirkpatrick AE, Roberts MM, Duffy SW. Oblique-view mammography: adequacy for screening. Work in progress. Radiology 1984; 151:39.
  4. Wald NJ, Murphy P, Major P, et al. UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening. BMJ 1995; 311:1189.
  5. Sickles EA, Weber WN, Galvin HB, et al. Baseline screening mammography: one vs two views per breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986; 147:1149.
  6. Stomper PC, Kopans DB, Sadowsky NL, et al. Is mammography painful? A multicenter patient survey. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148:521.
  7. Keefe FJ, Hauck ER, Egert J, et al. Mammography pain and discomfort: a cognitive-behavioral perspective. Pain 1994; 56:247.
  8. Eklund GW. Mammographic compression: science or art? Radiology 1991; 181:339.
  9. Kornguth PJ, Rimer BK, Conaway MR, et al. Impact of patient-controlled compression on the mammography experience. Radiology 1993; 186:99.
  10. Markle L, Roux S, Sayre JW. Reduction of discomfort during mammography utilizing a radiolucent cushioning pad. Breast J 2004; 10:345.
  11. Martin KE, Helvie MA, Zhou C, et al. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories. Radiology 2006; 240:656.
  12. Miller D, Livingstone V, Herbison P. Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; :CD002942.
  13. Lambertz CK, Johnson CJ, Montgomery PG, Maxwell JR. Premedication to reduce discomfort during screening mammography. Radiology 2008; 248:765.
  14. Dibble SL, Israel J, Nussey B, et al. Mammography with breast cushions. Womens Health Issues 2005; 15:55.
  15. Tabar L, Lebovic GS, Hermann GD, et al. Clinical assessment of a radiolucent cushion for mammography. Acta Radiol 2004; 45:154.
  16. FDA Public Health Advisory. Potential hazards of skin products containing numbing ingredients for relieving pain from mammography and other medical tests and conditions. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/DrugSafetyInformationforHeathcareProfessionals/PublicHealthAdvisories/ucm110625.htm (Accessed on March 13, 2009).
  17. Mettler FA, Upton AC, Kelsey CA, et al. Benefits versus risks from mammography: a critical reassessment. Cancer 1996; 77:903.
  18. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Berg CD, Visvanathan K, Robson M. Estimated risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening for young BRCA mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101:205.
  19. Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH, et al. New mammography screen/film combinations: imaging characteristics and radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 154:713.
  20. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ. Screen-film and digital mammography. Image quality and radiation dose considerations. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:871.
  21. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG, Jong RA. Technical developments in mammography. Health Phys 2008; 95:599.
  22. Heddson B, Rönnow K, Olsson M, Miller D. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007; 64:419.
  23. Morán P, Chevalier M, Ten JI, et al. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 114:375.
  24. Chevalier M, Morán P, Ten JI, et al. Patient dose in digital mammography. Med Phys 2004; 31:2471.
  25. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging, 2nd, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 2002.
  26. Hendrick RE, Berns EA. Optimizing techniques in screen-film mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:701.
  27. Mahesh M. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview. Radiographics 2004; 24:1747.
  28. Prummel MV, Muradali D, Shumak R, et al. Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program. Radiology 2016; 278:365.
  29. Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, Prummel MV, et al. Digital compared with screen-film mammography: performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program. Radiology 2013; 268:684.
  30. Pisano ED. Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program--Evidence that Direct Radiography Is Superior to Computed Radiography for Cancer Detection. Radiology 2016; 278:311.
  31. Rowlands JA, Zhao W, Blevis IM, et al. Flat-panel digital radiology with amorphous selenium and active-matrix readout. Radiographics 1997; 17:753.
  32. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005; 234:353.
  33. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiographics 1998; 18:893.
  34. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ, Hemminger BM, et al. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:266.
  35. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218:873.
  36. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229:877.
  37. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. Radiology 2004; 232:197.
  38. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007; 244:708.
  39. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773.
  40. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008; 246:376.
  41. Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 2009; 251:347.
  42. Sala M, Comas M, Macià F, et al. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 2009; 252:31.
  43. Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, et al. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193:1010.
  44. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155:493.
  45. Hendrick RE, Cole EB, Pisano ED, et al. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study. Radiology 2008; 247:38.
  46. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148:1.
  47. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/facilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm (Accessed on February 29, 2016).
  48. Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, et al. Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106:dju092.
  49. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/p080003a.pdf.
  50. Chan HP, Wei J, Sahiner B, et al. Computer-aided detection system for breast masses on digital tomosynthesis mammograms: preliminary experience. Radiology 2005; 237:1075.
  51. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008; 18:2817.
  52. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193:586.
  53. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:1545.
  54. Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195:W172.
  55. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013; 266:104.
  56. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189:616.
  57. Ma AK, Darambara DG, Stewart A, et al. Mean glandular dose estimation using MCNPX for a digital breast tomosynthesis system with tungsten/aluminum and tungsten/aluminum+silver x-ray anode-filter combinations. Med Phys 2008; 35:5278.
  58. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013; 267:47.
  59. Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, et al. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:1105.
  60. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, et al. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 2013; 269:694.
  61. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14:583.
  62. Sharpe RE Jr, Venkataraman S, Phillips J, et al. Increased Cancer Detection Rate and Variations in the Recall Rate Resulting from Implementation of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis into a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology 2016; 278:698.
  63. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014; 311:2499.
  64. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, et al. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 2012; 262:788.
  65. Bassett LW, Shayestehfar B, Hirbawi I. Obtaining previous mammograms for comparison: usefulness and costs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163:1083.
  66. Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA, et al. Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology 1990; 175:323.
  67. White K, Berbaum K, Smith WL. The role of previous radiographs and reports in the interpretation of current radiographs. Invest Radiol 1994; 29:263.
  68. Lindfors KK, O'Connor J, Parker RA. False-positive screening mammograms: effect of immediate versus later work-up on patient stress. Radiology 2001; 218:247.
  69. Wilson TE, Wallace C, Roubidoux MA, et al. Patient satisfaction with screening mammography: online vs off-line interpretation. Acad Radiol 1998; 5:771.
  70. Barton MB, Morley DS, Moore S, et al. Decreasing women's anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:529.
  71. Raza S, Rosen MP, Chorny K, et al. Patient expectations and costs of immediate reporting of screening mammography: talk isn't cheap. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:579.
  72. Ghate SV, Soo MS, Baker JA, et al. Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms. Radiology 2005; 235:31.
  73. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994; 191:241.
  74. Yankaskas BC, Klabunde CN, Ancelle-Park R, et al. International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done? J Med Screen 2004; 11:187.
  75. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Risso G, et al. The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen 2005; 12:125.
  76. Shaw CM, Flanagan FL, Fenlon HM, McNicholas MM. Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience. Radiology 2009; 250:354.
  77. Hofvind S, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Skaane P. Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2009; 253:652.
  78. Taylor P, Potts HW. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer 2008; 44:798.
  79. Taylor-Phillips S, Wallis MG, Jenkinson D, et al. Effect of Using the Same vs Different Order for Second Readings of Screening Mammograms on Rates of Breast Cancer Detection: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2016; 315:1956.
  80. Hulka CA, Slanetz PJ, Halpern EF, et al. Patients' opinion of mammography screening services: immediate results versus delayed results due to interpretation by two observers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:1085.
  81. Slanetz PJ, Moore RH, Hulka CA, et al. Physicians' opinions on the delivery of mammographic screening services: immediate interpretation versus double reading. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:377.
  82. Chan HP, Doi K, Galhotra S, et al. Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography. I. Automated detection of microcalcifications in mammography. Med Phys 1987; 14:538.
  83. Chan HP, Doi K, Vyborny CJ, et al. Improvement in radiologists' detection of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms. The potential of computer-aided diagnosis. Invest Radiol 1990; 25:1102.
  84. Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA. Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Breast Cancer on Mammograms. Breast Cancer 1997; 4:228.
  85. Kegelmeyer WP Jr, Pruneda JM, Bourland PD, et al. Computer-aided mammographic screening for spiculated lesions. Radiology 1994; 191:331.
  86. Fenton JJ, Xing G, Elmore JG, et al. Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158:580.
  87. Rao VM, Levin DC, Parker L, et al. How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mammography? J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7:802.
  88. Birdwell RL. The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Radiology 2009; 253:9.
  89. Philpotts LE. Can computer-aided detection be detrimental to mammographic interpretation? Radiology 2009; 253:17.
  90. Fenton JJ, Abraham L, Taplin SH, et al. Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103:1152.
  91. Jiang Y, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA, Metz CE. Comparison of independent double readings and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for the diagnosis of breast calcifications. Acad Radiol 2006; 13:84.
  92. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM. Radiologist detection of microcalcifications with and without computer-aided detection: a comparative study. Clin Radiol 2001; 56:150.
  93. Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Lehman CD. Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187:1475.
  94. Gromet M. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190:854.
  95. Georgian-Smith D, Moore RH, Halpern E, et al. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189:1135.
  96. Kim SJ, Moon WK, Cho N, et al. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography: sensitivity and reproducibility in serial examinations. Radiology 2008; 246:71.
  97. Kopans DB. Double reading. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:719.
  98. Brem RF. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography: the importance of the question and the critical numbers game. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189:1142.
  99. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG, et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1675.
  100. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection--prospective evaluation. Radiology 2006; 239:375.
  101. The JS, Schilling KJ, Hoffmeister JW, et al. Detection of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography and computer-aided detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192:337.
  102. Stomper PC. Breast imaging. In: Atlas of Breast Cancer, Hayes DF (Ed), Mosby, Philadelphia 2000. p.54.
  103. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, et al. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:35.
  104. Woods RW, Sisney GS, Salkowski LR, et al. The mammographic density of a mass is a significant predictor of breast cancer. Radiology 2011; 258:417.
  105. Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, et al. Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology 2009; 250:648.
  106. McLelland R, Hendrick RE, Zinninger MD, Wilcox PA. The American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 157:473.
  107. McLelland R, Pisano ED. The politics of mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:235.
  108. Medicare program; Medicare coverage of screening mammography--HCFA. Final rule. Fed Regist 1994; 59:49826.
  109. Quality standards and certification requirements for mammography facilities--FDA. Interim rule; opportunity for public comment. Fed Regist 1994; 59:49808.
  110. Kivel M. FDA's mammography facility quality assurance program. Adm Radiol 1994; 13:43.
  111. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System BI-RADS, 5th ed, D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, et al. (Eds), American Colege of Radiology, Reston, VA 2013.
  112. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463.
  113. Sickles EA. Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999; 213:11.
  114. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:409.
  115. Soo MS, Rosen EL, Baker JA, et al. Negative predictive value of sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:1167.
  116. Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology 2002; 225:176.
  117. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196:123.
  118. Kerlikowske K, Creasman J, Leung JW, et al. Differences in screening mammography outcomes among White, Chinese, and Filipino women. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:1862.
  119. Gill KS, Yankaskas BC. Screening mammography performance and cancer detection among black women and white women in community practice. Cancer 2004; 100:139.
  120. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:369.
  121. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:358.
  122. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:282.
  123. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:1840.
  124. Sumkin JH, Holbert BL, Herrmann JS, et al. Optimal reference mammography: a comparison of mammograms obtained 1 and 2 years before the present examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:343.
  125. Hakim CM, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, et al. Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms. Radiology 2015; 276:65.
  126. Banks E, Reeves G, Beral V, et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ 2004; 329:477.
  127. Middleton MS, McNamara MP Jr. Breast implant classification with MR imaging correlation: (CME available on RSNA link). Radiographics 2000; 20:E1.
  128. US Food and Drug Administration. Breast Implants. www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants (Accessed on September 23, 2011).
  129. Helvie MA, Bailey JE, Roubidoux MA, et al. Mammographic screening of TRAM flap breast reconstructions for detection of nonpalpable recurrent cancer. Radiology 2002; 224:211.
  130. Fajardo LL, Harvey JA, McAleese KA, et al. Breast cancer diagnosis in women with subglandular silicone gel-filled augmentation implants. Radiology 1995; 194:859.
  131. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, et al. Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. JAMA 2004; 291:442.
  132. Eklund GW, Busby RC, Miller SH, Job JS. Improved imaging of the augmented breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151:469.
  133. Berg WA, Caskey CI, Hamper UM, et al. Diagnosing breast implant rupture with MR imaging, US, and mammography. Radiographics 1993; 13:1323.
  134. Glynn C, Litherland J. Imaging breast augmentation and reconstruction. Br J Radiol 2008; 81:587.
  135. Brem RF, Tempany CM, Zerhouni EA. MR detection of breast implant rupture. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992; 16:157.
  136. Hölmich LR, Fryzek JP, Kjøller K, et al. The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 54:583.
  137. Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology 2007; 244:672.
  138. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002; 222:529.
  139. Taplin SH, Abraham L, Geller BM, et al. Effect of previous benign breast biopsy on the interpretive performance of subsequent screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102:1040.
  140. Fajardo LL, Roberts CC, Hunt KR. Mammographic surveillance of breast cancer patients: should the mastectomy site be imaged? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:953.
  141. Propeck PA, Scanlan KA. Utility of axillary views in postmastectomy patients. Radiology 1993; 187:769.
  142. Noone RB, Frazier TG, Noone GC, et al. Recurrence of breast carcinoma following immediate reconstruction: a 13-year review. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994; 93:96.
  143. Edeiken BS, Fornage BD, Bedi DG, et al. Recurrence in autogenous myocutaneous flap reconstruction after mastectomy for primary breast cancer: US diagnosis. Radiology 2003; 227:542.
  144. Eidelman Y, Liebling RW, Buchbinder S, et al. Mammography in the evaluation of masses in breasts reconstructed with TRAM flaps. Ann Plast Surg 1998; 41:229.
  145. Lee JM, Georgian-Smith D, Gazelle GS, et al. Detecting nonpalpable recurrent breast cancer: the role of routine mammographic screening of transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstructions. Radiology 2008; 248:398.
  146. Sabate JM, Clotet M, Torrubia S, et al. Radiologic evaluation of breast disorders related to pregnancy and lactation. Radiographics 2007; 27 Suppl 1:S101.
  147. Yang WT, Dryden MJ, Gwyn K, et al. Imaging of breast cancer diagnosed and treated with chemotherapy during pregnancy. Radiology 2006; 239:52.
  148. Ahn BY, Kim HH, Moon WK, et al. Pregnancy- and lactation-associated breast cancer: mammographic and sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22:491.
  149. Liberman L, Giess CS, Dershaw DD, et al. Imaging of pregnancy-associated breast cancer. Radiology 1994; 191:245.
  150. Swinford AE, Adler DD, Garver KA. Mammographic appearance of the breasts during pregnancy and lactation: false assumptions. Acad Radiol 1998; 5:467.
  151. Greskovich JF Jr, Macklis RM. Radiation therapy in pregnancy: risk calculation and risk minimization. Semin Oncol 2000; 27:633.
  152. Behrman RH, Homer MJ, Yang WT, Whitman GJ. Mammography and fetal dose. Radiology 2007; 243:605; author reply 605.
  153. Chlebowski RT, Hendrix SL, Langer RD, et al. Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA 2003; 289:3243.
  154. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138:168.
  155. Kaufman Z, Garstin WI, Hayes R, et al. The mammographic parenchymal patterns of women on hormonal replacement therapy. Clin Radiol 1991; 43:389.
  156. Greendale GA, Reboussin BA, Slone S, et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and change in mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:30.
  157. McTiernan A, Martin CF, Peck JD, et al. Estrogen-plus-progestin use and mammographic density in postmenopausal women: Women's Health Initiative randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:1366.
  158. Banks E, Reeves G, Beral V, et al. Impact of use of hormone replacement therapy on false positive recall in the NHS breast screening programme: results from the Million Women Study. BMJ 2004; 328:1291.
  159. Buist DS, Anderson ML, Reed SD, et al. Short-term hormone therapy suspension and mammography recall: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150:752.
  160. Giordano SH, Cohen DS, Buzdar AU, et al. Breast carcinoma in men: a population-based study. Cancer 2004; 101:51.
  161. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61:212.
  162. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 2001; 91:1724.
  163. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer 1995; 75:2507.
  164. Bassett LW, Liu TH, Giuliano AE, Gold RH. The prevalence of carcinoma in palpable vs impalpable, mammographically detected lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 157:21.
  165. Kopans DB. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 2002; 94:580.
  166. Michaelson JS, Silverstein M, Wyatt J, et al. Predicting the survival of patients with breast carcinoma using tumor size. Cancer 2002; 95:713.
  167. Eklund GW, Cardenosa G. The art of mammographic positioning. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:21.
  168. Kopans DB. Breast imaging and the standard of care for the symptomatic patient. Radiology 1993; 187:608.
  169. Faulk RM, Sickles EA. Efficacy of spot compression-magnification and tangential views in mammographic evaluation of palpable breast masses. Radiology 1992; 185:87.
  170. Catalano O, Raso MM, D'Aiuto M, et al. Additional role of colour Doppler ultrasound imaging in intracystic breast tumours. Radiol Med 2009; 114:253.
  171. Loving VA, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, et al. Targeted ultrasound in women younger than 30 years with focal breast signs or symptoms: outcomes analyses and management implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195:1472.
  172. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004; 233:830.
  173. Moon WK, Noh DY, Im JG. Multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral breast cancers: bilateral whole-breast US in the preoperative evaluation of patients. Radiology 2002; 224:569.
  174. Berg WA, Gilbreath PL. Multicentric and multifocal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation. Radiology 2000; 214:59.
  175. Harris KM, Ganott MA, Shestak KC, et al. Silicone implant rupture: detection with US. Radiology 1993; 187:761.
  176. Rosculet KA, Ikeda DM, Forrest ME, et al. Ruptured gel-filled silicone breast implants: sonographic findings in 19 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159:711.
  177. DeBruhl ND, Gorczyca DP, Ahn CY, et al. Silicone breast implants: US evaluation. Radiology 1993; 189:95.
  178. Slanetz PJ, Freer PE, Birdwell RL. Breast-density legislation--practical considerations. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:593.
  179. D'Orsi CJ, Getty DJ, Pickett RM, et al. Stereoscopic digital mammography: improved specificity and reduced rate of recall in a prospective clinical trial. Radiology 2013; 266:81.
Topic Outline